UN claims environmental damages

According to the U.N. Environmental Program, it has identified "some $6.6 trillion worth of damages" resulting from environmental devastation caused by global warming or air pollution in 2008, equal to 11 percent of global GDP. This is quite a claim considering that the science is exceedingly doggy. This issue is exceedingly political, yet the media will publish it because they love scandals, and it comes from a (inter-) government agency, so it must be true.

The evidence is the fact that Japan is experiencing 'record' temperatures after a century. Notwithstanding the 'heat island' effect, there is also the natural variations in the global temperature regime. The earth's climate varies due to natural processes. We are about due for an ice age, so ought we be concerned about a warming? The answer is no. A cooling would result in a plunge in global temperatures. The cause of global temperature decreases? The UN Climate Panel have no answer.

The problem with such agencies is that they function of simple correlation. i.e. They see a problem and they simply correlate it with any 'apparent' cause. If only real science were so simple. When such ideas are challenged, governments are inclined to finance a lot of research to prove their ideas are right. There is of course less money if you prove they are wrong; so rest assured 'academics' are going to find a problem, because they need to justify their existence. What happened to respect for truth among scientists? That has seldom escaped the power of philosophy to drive science. The missing ingredient is critical thinking.

In the coming decades we can expect the earth's climate to cool naturally because at present, according to Antarctic ice core dating, we are at the peak of a global warming. From this point on, global scientists will have accepted that there is no warming. At that point, you will see a lot of attention being given to a new crisis 'global cooling', which is actually more of a concern. My suspicion is that we will cope just fine. A lot of scare. The real threat is posed by governments, which are not driven by informed critical, objective arguments, but the biggest, most popular group of scientists you can find. i.e. Its a meritocracy of sought, but its not scientific merit, so much as Aristotle's famed 'fallacy' of appeal to authority, or professional qualifications. The sad reality is that academic tenure is considered an achievement. Its not. Academic is a pretense for intellectual and scientific acumen; a dirty rationalisation. I am currently reading the history of the Industrial Revolution. It is actually striking how many of the best scientific minds existed outside the 'establishment', and the extent to which other scientists dogged on those scientists. Edmond Halley could not even get tenure because of his religious views. He needs money, so that was his justification for trying. He had an exemplary mind, and yet he was snubbed by the Establishment....perhaps they were urked by his practicality, as he was responsible for winning support from the Admiralty to get funding to map the changes in the global magnetic field, as well as the tides. Meanwhile, academia was busy living off extorted wealth, rationalists to be sure, who achieved very little by comparison. I am sure they stumbled across some ideas. Perhaps the modern equivalent like 'frogs display evidence of emotions'.

Source article - see Japan Times.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Global warming evidence no stronger

In this CNN article, the UK's Meteorological Centre argues that the arguments for global warming are more compelling than any time ever. This makes one laugh because they posit no new evidence for their claims. Its simply more of the same. The problem is - what they consider science. Animals function on the level of 'mere correlation', humanity 'ought not'. Just because a warming phenomenon occurs when humanity is emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases is not satisfactory as a basis for causation. That is simply bad science.

The stalwarts for an 'imminent crisis' behind these stories ignore the flaws in their own evidence. My prior observation of global warming is that over the last 700,000 years the average Earth's temperature has fluctuated. The current measurements are within the pattern observed over the last 700,000 years.

At issue is the fact that the Earth's temperature record is on the cusp of a 'radical' climate change. That is the thesis, and certainly, statistically it is a possibility, given that the present climate sits at a point of inflection. i.e. It might go either way. So what does it mean to say the climate could go either way. It can mean 3 things:

1. The Earth could cool, i.e. slow its rate of heating and eventually cool in the same pattern that has occurred over the last 700,000years.

2. The Earth could continue to heat, i.e. It could develop new climatic character, which might merely reflect natural phenomena, or it could reflect human influence. Even if humans are responsible, it does not mean that we ought to worry for a number of reasons:

a. The climate will likely provide its own means of adjustment, i.e. more cloud cover, more robust vegetation growth (i.e. CO2 is actually a plant fertiliser).

b. Scientists might find a new way of coping with the problem, i.e. Say gigantic mirrors to reflect solar radiation...or simpler options like seeding the oceans to stimulate plankton growth.

The article even cites evidence to suggest the 'global warming' is starting to turn around.

"Although the warming trend is continuing there is evidence that the rate has slowed in the last ten years. Since the end of the 1970s, the rate of surface temperature warming has, on average, risen 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, according to the Met Office. But from 2000 to 2009 that decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13 degrees Celsius, despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise".

In what sense can this be considered to be stronger evidence for global warming. CO2 emissions are rising unabated and yet temperatures are cooling. I am not saying that his proves that there is no global warming, as I would then be committing the error of my counterparts. My argument is merely that a slowing might be suggesting the historic cycle remains true. The historical record indicates that we are due for an Ice Age. That will be the next scare to strike the public. Is it possible that after the folly of this one that no one will take an ice age seriously. At least it will not be our fault. We should only be concerned about crises which we cause. Such thinking is the 'cave men' values of the Dark Ages. Should we not respond to real threats, whether they are our fault or natural phenomenon. Anyway, that is a problem on the horizon. Of course not all minds are equally compelled to see threats that lie around corners....they are too busy imagining them.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com